Author
Topic: The Next EOS M? [CR1] (Read 48215 times)

Sony's RX1 is full frame but they had to resort to a fixed lens because the FF optics extend out of the main camera body into the lens, the size is 4.5" x 2.63" x 2.75" including the fixed lens. To accommodate interchangeable lenses, the RX1 would have to be at least 1.7" thick and/or have complex optics at the camera/lens interface.

absolutely no! Package couild be axactly like Sony RX-1, just with a lens mount flush up front. And a small range of lenses designed for it - essentially a couple of ultra-compact pancakes 24/4.0, 35/2.8, 50/2.0, 75/2.8 and an equally ultracompact, foldable kit-zoom - say 24-70/f 4.0 L IS.

And of course an EF-adapter ... distance ring with straight-through wiring from one end to the other, no chip, no optical elements. So easy, so simple, so cheap. :-)

Logged

canon rumors FORUM

Do you even understand the physics of optics? If Sony could have done it, they would have made the RX1 compatible with their lenses. They have $5000 of pricing between the Leica and the A99. Why come out with an inflexible FF compact?

The people slagging the M because it is not full frame are hysterical. The full frame sensor gives you a marginally increased ability to decrease depth of field and larger pixels (depending on the sensor resolution) that make noise easier to handle. The APS-C sensor works just fine for 99% of photography needs. The M has problems. The fact that it is not "full-frame" is not one of them.

I don't blame Sony for pricing RX1 at $2800, since it's the ONLY FF sensor camera built in P&S body for less than $3000. Not to mention, it comes with Carl Zeiss f2 lens. No other companies have "BLL" to bring this kind of product to the market.Mark my words: If Fuji or Sony comes out FF camera in compact body like the RX1 or Fuji x100, faster AF and with exchangable lenses, I will DUMP all my Canon gear. I don't understand the point of waiting for Canon FF compact camera.

Sony RX-1 is also a problem rather than a solution as far as my demands are concerned. 1. I will NEVeR buy a digital camera with a glued-on, ultra boring 35mm prime lens. No way. Its got to have a lens mount. And its got to have a fully-functional (IS, AF, flash-metering, distance information, etc.) adapter for Canon EF.2. I will NEVER again buy a camera with dead slow AF. RX-1 ist way too slow. My acceptable minimum AF-speed is Nikon1, but preferably like a Panasonic GH-3.

I really do not understand why Sony did not produce an RX-2 alongside the RX-1 ... with a lens mount. They do not even have to worry about "Cannibalizing" their DSLRs (or rather their sub-par SLTs) ... since those are not sold in worthwile numbers anyway. Sony could have gone ALL OUT and create the first real FF compact camera that beats a Leica M9 by a hige margin ... at a third of the price. There is a HUGE amrket for such a camera + a range of ultra-compact, but decent pancake lenses and a high-end, ultra-compact / foldable 24-70/f 4.0 kit lens.

I hope Canon will continue to be punished by the market (=us!) and hits the wall soon with its lacklustre APS-C EOS-M system. I will NEVER buy another APS-C camer and yet another set of APS-C lenses. Still got a bunch of EF-S ...

It's a starting point for Sony. I didn't see 35mm fixed as boring lens, I took over 2K photos last couple weeks with my RX1. My 5D III and all EF lenses been sitting in the bag lately - NOW, that is boring

I do agree with exchange lenses features on RX series is a HUGE plus. RX1 is not designed as a sport camera. The AF speed on RX1 is good enough for me to capture my kids moving around, but I don't mind for having faster AF

The people slagging the M because it is not full frame are hysterical. The full frame sensor gives you a marginally increased ability to decrease depth of field and larger pixels (depending on the sensor resolution) that make noise easier to handle. The APS-C sensor works just fine for 99% of photography needs. The M has problems. The fact that it is not "full-frame" is not one of them.

Both are APS-C. Besides the optics, there are electronics involved to improve sensor IQ, AF performance, etc. I don't see how anyone can think FF came fit within these package dimensions.

FF does not fit in a package as small als the APS-C EOS M. But FF does nicely fit into a package the size of a Sony RX-1. All that is still needed is a lens mount up front. Plus a few FF-capable "pancake" lenses the size of Leica-M lenses or the EF 40mm/2.8 pancake. I do not see anything difficult in that task.

Even many years ago 36x24mm imaging surface was available in really small boxes ... with some smart engineering. Digital should be way easier, since there is no bulky film cartridge involved, but a flat, thin imaging-sensor. No need to settle for half-format cameras. I want full format. In a small box. :-)

"FF does not fit in a package as small als the APS-C EOS M. But it does fit in a package as small as the Sony RX-1. I would be more than happy size-wise with the RX-1

36x24mm imaging surface will fit into really small boxes ... with some smart engineering. :-)"

FF does not fit in an RX-1, that's why it has a fixed lens. The lens includes the optical path for the light to get to the FF sensor. LEICA = smart engineering and their FF body is the size of the 6D minus the viewfinder.

Your examples prove what I am saying and you are not understanding. Fixed lenses to accommodate the approximately 35mm or 1.38" optical path minimum required between the FF sensor (35mm film) and the last lens element. Add packaging for the body case and electronics and you are at around 1.75-2.00 inches minimum for a FF. Film was easier, you could pretty much have the film slide along the back of the camera, not so with a sensor.

FF does not fit in an RX-1, that's why it has a fixed lens. The lens includes the optical path for the light to get to the FF sensor. LEICA = smart engineering and their FF body is the size of the 6D minus the viewfinder.

Your examples prove what I am saying and you are not understanding. Fixed lenses to accommodate the approximately 35mm or 1.38" optical path minimum required between the FF sensor (35mm film) and the last lens element. Add packaging for the body case and electronics and you are at around 1.75-2.00 inches minimum for a FF. Film was easier, you could pretty much have the film slide along the back of the camera, not so with a sensor.

I do understand. We are talking of mirrorless here. No need for a lot of space betwenn rear lens element and sensor plane.

Whether "the light path is built into" a non-interchangeable prime lens stuck unto the body or into an interchangeable lens mounted via a lens mount makes no difference whatsover. Except the first "solution" yielda a dumb, inflexible single focal length camera and the second solution yields a versatile camera-system. :-)

Flange back for Leica M for example is is 27.8mm. I am quite sure 20mm are also doable with some smart microlens array and proper lens-design. And if the rear lens elements would stick somewhat into the camera body, the camera could be as thin as an RX-1 and the lenses could be really slim as well.

And that's exactly what I want. And what the overwhelming majority of the market wants.

I will definitely NOT waste time and money moving from my current Canon APS-C DSLR plus lens assortment (EF-S, EF) to a Canon APS-C mirrorless plus new lens assortment (EF-M) to finally a Canon FF mirrorless ILC Camera ("EF-really right") with still another lens assortment. No way!

1. I want to skip purchase of another DSLR 2. I want to skip purhcasing any further APS-C cameras3. I want to move right on to a compact, hi-performance FF mirrorless ILC with * excellent sensor* fast contrast+in-sensor-plane Phase-AF* hi-end EVF * full ergonomic controls [i.e. 2 wheels! ] * at max. 1/3 of the cost of a Leica M system - so basically at the price of Sony RX-1

The first company to offer this, will be my next camera system vendor. :-)

FF does not fit in an RX-1, that's why it has a fixed lens. The lens includes the optical path for the light to get to the FF sensor. LEICA = smart engineering and their FF body is the size of the 6D minus the viewfinder.

Your examples prove what I am saying and you are not understanding. Fixed lenses to accommodate the approximately 35mm or 1.38" optical path minimum required between the FF sensor (35mm film) and the last lens element. Add packaging for the body case and electronics and you are at around 1.75-2.00 inches minimum for a FF. Film was easier, you could pretty much have the film slide along the back of the camera, not so with a sensor.

I do understand. We are talking of mirrorless here. No need for a lot of space betwenn rear lens element and sensor plane.

Whether "the light path is built into" a non-interchangeable prime lens stuck unto the body or into an interchangeable lens mounted via a lens mount makes no difference whatsover. Except the first "solution" yielda a dumb, inflexible single focal length camera and the second solution yields a versatile camera-system. :-)

Flange back for Leica M for example is is 27.8mm. I am quite sure 20mm are also doable with some smart microlens array and proper lens-design. And if the rear lens elements would stick somewhat into the camera body, the camera could be as thin as an RX-1 and the lenses could be really slim as well.

And that's exactly what I want. And what the overwhelming majority of the market wants.

I will definitely NOT waste time and money moving from my current Canon APS-C DSLR plus lens assortment (EF-S, EF) to a Canon APS-C mirrorless plus new lens assortment (EF-M) to finally a Canon FF mirrorless ILC Camera ("EF-really right") with still another lens assortment. No way!

1. I want to skip purchase of another DSLR 2. I want to skip purhcasing any further APS-C cameras3. I want to move right on to a compact, hi-performance FF mirrorless ILC with * excellent sensor* fast contrast+in-sensor-plane Phase-AF* hi-end EVF * full ergonomic controls [i.e. 2 wheels! ] * at max. 1/3 of the cost of a Leica M system - so basically at the price of Sony RX-1

The first company to offer this, will be my next camera system vendor. :-)

Both Canon and Nikon are living in the past -- building cameras for markets that don't exist anymore.

There is NO demand for compact P&S and none for step-up cameras. They have been replaced by smart-phones.

There IS a demand for small/light high-end cameras with a good selection of lenses. So what does Canon deliver An under-featured and over-priced EOS M. Soon to be joined by another under-featured camera priced higher than the Sony NEX-6. WTF is going on